(07-01-2014 01:26 PM)HawkeyeCoug Wrote:  One thing that may work better than merging for football only is to merge their TV contracts for football only. That would give them more leverage when going to the TV people. They may want to include the other G5 conferences as well to form a unified bargaining body.

Of course, it seems impossible to get the G5 to work together on anything. There was limited success in getting the BCS monopoly broken up, but the lack of unity in the G5 is killing them. I am also in favor of the G5 starting an NIT-style 16 team football tournament that would free them from crappy bowl games with bad matchups and high travel costs. G5 fans haven't taken too kindly to that in the last ~15 years I've been suggesting it. Talk about shooting yourself in the foot.

No, don't try to wheel trailers into the neighborhood.

(07-01-2014 01:26 PM)HawkeyeCoug Wrote:  One thing that may work better than merging for football only is to merge their TV contracts for football only. That would give them more leverage when going to the TV people. They may want to include the other G5 conferences as well to form a unified bargaining body.

Of course, it seems impossible to get the G5 to work together on anything. There was limited success in getting the BCS monopoly broken up, but the lack of unity in the G5 is killing them. I am also in favor of the G5 starting an NIT-style 16 team football tournament that would free them from crappy bowl games with bad matchups and high travel costs. G5 fans haven't taken too kindly to that in the last ~15 years I've been suggesting it. Talk about shooting yourself in the foot.

No thanks to the FCS style playoff for the G5.

I would like to see the G5 work together (including investing about 10 million dollars of the 85 million dollar CFP money that the G5 split) to create a "Champions Series" of high end bowls with high enough payouts to attract a #3/4 selections from power conferences. These "Champions Series" Bowls would serve as suitable post season destinations for the 4 G5 champions that don't qualify for the single access bowl reserved for the best of the G5 champs. Right now, the G5 champs who don't make the access bowls are relegated to trash bowls. That's one place I think the G5 can (and should) work together on.

I see it as 3 bowls. The #2 G5 champ and #3 G5 champs would play #3/4 selections from power conferences in bowls that pay the P5 participant 3-4 million each (G5 participants would receive 1 million each). The #4 and #5 G5 champs would play each other in a quality bowl paying each 1 million.

(07-01-2014 01:36 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  No thanks to the FCS style playoff for the G5.

I would like to see the G5 work together (including investing about 10 million dollars of the 85 million dollar CFP money that the G5 split) to create a "Champions Series" of high end bowls with high enough payouts to attract a #3/4 selections from power conferences. These "Champions Series" Bowls would serve as suitable post season destinations for the 4 G5 champions that don't qualify for the single access bowl reserved for the best of the G5 champs. Right now, the G5 champs who don't make the access bowls are relegated to trash bowls. That's one place I think the G5 can (and should) work together on.

I see it as 3 bowls. The #2 G5 champ and #3 G5 champs would play #3/4 selections from power conferences in bowls that pay the P5 participant 3-4 million each (G5 participants would receive 1 million each). The #4 and #5 G5 champs would play each other in a quality bowl paying each 1 million.

How are you going to work those finances on $10 Mill? The salary for the bowl executives are easily $1 mill per bowl, eating up 40% of the money. Now you have 6 million in bowl payouts, but if there is an even split (and bowls such as the Las Vegas bowl give more to the P5 particiapnt) you are only giving $3 million to the G5 teams. How does going from $10 mill to $3 mill make financial sense for the rest of the G5 teams?

Let the top rated champ go to an equity bowl. Run a 16 team tournament at home sites of the higher seed. The FCS runs this model on much less fan support and TV dollars than the G5, and they survive financially. The CBI and CIT do this in college basketball without teams losing a bunch of money.

Meanwhile, the G5 sell themselves to a bowl system where they lose money on each bowl game played, have bad matchups, conference champs rarely meet, and end up with massive student subsidies paying for it. Further, the tournament could be implemented rather quickly, and be added to as bowl contracts finish up and are not renewed. Teams get better matchups by winning, not by conference tie-ins, and you will have excellent teams meeting at the end. Reality TV is evidence that the drama of people being kicked off an island draws viewers. A one-and-done tournament will also draw viewers, certainly more than the current G5 bowl games do now.

the reason the G5 does not work together is there are about 20 teams that are smart enough to know that about 40 teams are just begging bowl holders and attractants and breeders of other begging bowl holders and the more begging bowl holders there are the more likely a split and the more likely their team might not make the cut in that split for whatever reason

there are 65 teams in P5 conferences even if you took the split to 96 (6 16 team conferences or some mix of that) that still leaves 33 teams to take a hike and if it is less than 96 the number to take a hike starts going to

if 80 break off that is 49 left to take a hike......the more you tie yourself in with those 49 and the more you breed begging bowl holders to increase that 49 the more likely you are to be one of them

What is a begging bowl holder?

(06-27-2014 01:20 PM)lance99 Wrote:  AAC fan boys need to stop with this. The MWC seems to have no interest in this. Just accept that you C-USA leftovers are a G5 conference and move on.

Posted from my mobile device using the CSNbbs App

Are you out of your mind? Did you not notice that the AAC won a BCS bowl, the MBBNC, and a slew of other accomplishments this year? No offense to the MWC intended, but I'm pretty sure it's the AAC who is not interested in this.

(07-01-2014 02:19 PM)HawkeyeCoug Wrote:  

(07-01-2014 01:36 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  No thanks to the FCS style playoff for the G5.

I would like to see the G5 work together (including investing about 10 million dollars of the 85 million dollar CFP money that the G5 split) to create a "Champions Series" of high end bowls with high enough payouts to attract a #3/4 selections from power conferences. These "Champions Series" Bowls would serve as suitable post season destinations for the 4 G5 champions that don't qualify for the single access bowl reserved for the best of the G5 champs. Right now, the G5 champs who don't make the access bowls are relegated to trash bowls. That's one place I think the G5 can (and should) work together on.

I see it as 3 bowls. The #2 G5 champ and #3 G5 champs would play #3/4 selections from power conferences in bowls that pay the P5 participant 3-4 million each (G5 participants would receive 1 million each). The #4 and #5 G5 champs would play each other in a quality bowl paying each 1 million.

How are you going to work those finances on $10 Mill? The salary for the bowl executives are easily $1 mill per bowl, eating up 40% of the money. Now you have 6 million in bowl payouts, but if there is an even split (and bowls such as the Las Vegas bowl give more to the P5 particiapnt) you are only giving $3 million to the G5 teams. How does going from $10 mill to $3 mill make financial sense for the rest of the G5 teams?

Let the top rated champ go to an equity bowl. Run a 16 team tournament at home sites of the higher seed. The FCS runs this model on much less fan support and TV dollars than the G5, and they survive financially. The CBI and CIT do this in college basketball without teams losing a bunch of money.

Meanwhile, the G5 sell themselves to a bowl system where they lose money on each bowl game played, have bad matchups, conference champs rarely meet, and end up with massive student subsidies paying for it. Further, the tournament could be implemented rather quickly, and be added to as bowl contracts finish up and are not renewed. Teams get better matchups by winning, not by conference tie-ins, and you will have excellent teams meeting at the end. Reality TV is evidence that the drama of people being kicked off an island draws viewers. A one-and-done tournament will also draw viewers, certainly more than the current G5 bowl games do now.

A couple of quick points. The 3 bowls I propose (not 4) would be owned by the G5 and the profits would be funneled back to the G5. They would be managed by a single group and would be far more efficiently managed. There would be no bowl directors being paid a million (btw--I don't think any make a million right now).

It would look like this---

#1 G5 champ vs P5 (selection comm)---CFP game already established

#2 G5 champ vs P5 #3/4 selection (new bowl owned by G5)--Payout/P5-3 mil G5-1mil

#3 G5 champ vs P5 #3/4 selection (new bowl owned by G5)--Payout/P5-3 mil G5-1mil

#4 G5 champ #4 vs G5 champ #5 (new bowl owned by G5)--Payout/1mil each


As for the finances, the bowls would be funded by 10 million from the CFP, but should cost far less than that (if done correctly, they should actually make money). The bowls would be owned by the G5. Thus, the G5 would be receiving income from sponsorship deals, media rights contracts, and ticket sales. Ideally, once established, the 10 million coming from the CFP would never even be needed after the first start up year. If the cash flow is not positive, it will certainly only be short a few million, which would be money well spent to provide the G5 champs with a proper national stage for it's champions.


As far a 16 game football tournament, unless the NCAA approved a 17 game FBS season it isn't going to happen. Besides, there is no money in determining the 66th best team in the nation (which is exactly how a G5 playoff would be viewed). The FCS playoff draws flies and media pays virtually nothing for it. Why would we copy such a model?

What we really need is 3 high end bowl games to showcase the G5 champs---thus bringing context and importance to every G5 championship race. You build value for your regular season by making the championship mean something more than a trip to the Military Bowl or the Go Daddy.com Bowl.

(06-27-2014 12:46 PM)HuskyU Wrote:  The only move to make is an all-sports best of the rest conference. It'd be a mostly AAC/MWC line-up with the fat cut-out...

this

It's time for this thread and this sentiment to die.

(07-01-2014 08:59 PM)jaredf29 Wrote:  It's time for this thread and this sentiment to die.

Yes. Lets all stay in our little failed G5 conferences and wait for the next serving of ESPN gruel. Its not that complicated. The model the SEC uses isnt going to work with G5 schools. If it did the MAC would be a power conference. The G5 needs a new mouse trap.

(07-01-2014 07:41 PM)Bearcats#1 Wrote:  

(06-27-2014 12:46 PM)HuskyU Wrote:  The only move to make is an all-sports best of the rest conference. It'd be a mostly AAC/MWC line-up with the fat cut-out...

this

Agree this would be the only way this idea would work. For the short term I prefer to bring in Navy and make a go of it, for at least one season and a CCG. If that fails, then entertain a merger.

(07-01-2014 07:35 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(07-01-2014 02:19 PM)HawkeyeCoug Wrote:  How are you going to work those finances on $10 Mill? The salary for the bowl executives are easily $1 mill per bowl, eating up 40% of the money. Now you have 6 million in bowl payouts, but if there is an even split (and bowls such as the Las Vegas bowl give more to the P5 particiapnt) you are only giving $3 million to the G5 teams. How does going from $10 mill to $3 mill make financial sense for the rest of the G5 teams?

Let the top rated champ go to an equity bowl. Run a 16 team tournament at home sites of the higher seed. The FCS runs this model on much less fan support and TV dollars than the G5, and they survive financially. The CBI and CIT do this in college basketball without teams losing a bunch of money.

Meanwhile, the G5 sell themselves to a bowl system where they lose money on each bowl game played, have bad matchups, conference champs rarely meet, and end up with massive student subsidies paying for it. Further, the tournament could be implemented rather quickly, and be added to as bowl contracts finish up and are not renewed. Teams get better matchups by winning, not by conference tie-ins, and you will have excellent teams meeting at the end. Reality TV is evidence that the drama of people being kicked off an island draws viewers. A one-and-done tournament will also draw viewers, certainly more than the current G5 bowl games do now.

A couple of quick points.

Clip
...
As far a 16 game football tournament, unless the NCAA approved a 17 game FBS season it isn't going to happen. Besides, there is no money in determining the 66th best team in the nation (which is exactly how a G5 playoff would be viewed). The FCS playoff draws flies and media pays virtually nothing for it. Why would we copy such a model?

What we really need is 3 high end bowl games to showcase the G5 champs---thus bringing context and importance to every G5 championship race. You build value for your regular season by making the championship mean something more than a trip to the Military Bowl or the Go Daddy.com Bowl.

You make some good points (such as me misreading it as 4 bowls instead of 3). I should have stated "bowl employee compensation" though if that is run through a single organization expenses could be minimized.

However, I will take a great exception to the FCS playoff being a bad model. The FCS playoffs are televised on ESPN, and the FCS is actually getting some money out of it. How many other FCS vs. FCS games are televised nationally on ESPN? The fact that FCS games are even on TV in a national broadcast is a huge proof of the viability of a lower level playoff.

Relative to the value of a regular season G5 vs. G5 game, a playoff would have much more value as seen by the televising of the FCS playoff. How can anyone argue that a "one and done" playoff game would have less TV value than a bowl game matching the same two teams?

Look at the rise of reality TV, and how ratings are driven by seemingly meaningless competitions where someone gets voted off an island or booted out of a house. College football has enough interest to get ESPN to carry G5 vs. G5 bowl games, so having a playoff format for many of the same games would have even more TV value.

Also, look at the negotiating leverage involved. The G5 can sell a package of 15 games where each level promotes the next set of games. Thus, they should be able to get a better per-game TV deal than 15 bowl games each negotiating a separate deal (or not doing it at all since ESPN owns them). It switches the leverage back more to the G5.